Honeoye-Richmond Historical Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270913708
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Honeoye, NY, USA
Phone
5853225909
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$910,968
Expenses
$701,328
Assets
$228,556
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Gregory J Hunt (President)
  • Kate Crowley (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Margaret Bond
  • Linda Farrel
  • Michael Hayard

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of this society is to discover, preserve and promote the history of the Town of Richmond, hamlet of Honeoye and the surrounding communities of the County of Ontario, State of New York by the collection, preservation, study and display of documents, artifacts,

What it reported doing in 2025

Since 2009 the Honeoye-Richmond Historicial Society (the Organization) has operated a small historical museum in the rear of the Richmond NY Town Hall, Richmond NY. In 2025 the Organization was given a grant from the Finger Lakes Area Community Endowment (FLACE) to build an addition to the museum to expand the Organizations ability to display historical artifacts pertaining to the local area. The arrangement between the Organization and the Town of Richmond was that the Organization would pay for and manage the construction through grant monies from FLACE. Once construction is complete the Organization will turn over the new addition to the Town of Richmond and then the Organization would then lease back the addition for $1 per yer. At the time the construction is completed the Town will own the structure and Organization will populate the interior of the structure with historical exhibits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $92 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.